The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280787 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #175 on: 21/12/2010 13:53:36 »
So how does the red and blue shift come to be? If you look at the question above you'll see that we have two alternatives when it comes to explaining why light don't act as a ball thrown from a speeding car contrasted to someone throwing it from the sidewalk. Light keeps the same speed in both cases.

And we have two possibilities to why it does so, a length contraction and a time dilation. Well as far as I can think of it for now? And considering that all speed is made of those two, distance and time, what can we translate them into when it comes to a wave?

A wave have its 'energy' expressed in its frequency. With a length contraction applied to a wave you will compress it in 'time' and so find it gaining 'energy'. all those jagged zigzag lines coming together as it is, somewhat like compressing a accordion. That's a blue-shift.

In an 'expansion' if a wave wanders into it the idea is that the wave gets 'stretched' and so less 'compressed'. You can see the same effects with objects moving from each other, if sending out light they will find each other waves being 'red shifted' as their motion 'works' against the direction light propagates. And the other way around, it becomes 'blue-shifted' as the objects move towards each other.
 
« Last Edit: 21/12/2010 15:22:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #176 on: 21/12/2010 13:58:11 »
And that is the real effect you will see when observing objects using light-clocks, that and a 'contraction'. And that's the mystery to it, and also I guess why Lorentz found his 'length contraction' as being somewhat more 'real', as it should be directly observable for a distant observer as well as inside.

The way to turn it around? How about light not moving :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #177 on: 21/12/2010 15:27:16 »
That doesn't change anything when it comes to how light seems to behave, the rules that Einstein and Maxwell and Newton and Lorentz saw will still be here. But it makes for one more interpretation, as I think? Depending :)

So how to make an argument for that light can't move?

I think the first argument should be just what we observe, that light keeps it speed in any frame possible to observe it in, and from.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #178 on: 21/12/2010 15:36:12 »
To me that always have felt like a 'field', like something (a property) resting behind everything we see. And if that might be, then why don't we see the 'field'. But I think we do see it, even though we can't prove it. We call it a lot of things, a fluid or a foam, or gluons or virtual particles or perhaps even loops and strings, I think I can make that list pretty long. But what they all have together is that they are non-observables.

We can only 'see' them 'indirectly'. We can't 'observe' them like we do a billiard ball or even a 'atom'. But we are pretty sure they are needed. They are what we call the 'energy carriers', those remarkable 'thingies' that we believe to be responsible for exchanging 'energy'. As long as we discuss them as 'moving' we have a problem though, then we expect them to be able to 'pop in and out' of existence to influence all atoms there is, as well as space.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #179 on: 21/12/2010 15:39:24 »
But if they 'exist everywhere'?

Here, as well as in the deepest emptiest space, shouldn't they be looked at as a property instead? And if you look at that way, you're no longer bound. For a property there is no distance, the law of lights speed in a vacuum stops to exist, and there is no 'motion' as we think of it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #180 on: 21/12/2010 15:42:42 »
For a 'property' you don't exist. And neither do I, they are expressions of the 'ultimate reality', maybe? Not the one we are in though, here they are 'bound' into patterns and mosaics, or 'forces' if you like.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #181 on: 21/12/2010 15:57:41 »
"In the beginning there was light" :)
I don't think so, I think 'in the beginning there was 'rules'.'

We have to assume something, and if it stands between 'energy' and 'rules' I expect rules to be the first thing needed, 'energy' without rules might be possible too, but not really. The rules that we then see would come from what? And now you give that 'function' a name, maybe 'entropy'?

Well, okay :) In the beginning there was 'entropy'. Happy now?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #182 on: 21/12/2010 16:22:12 »
What we have done is to define a border between 'observables' and what 'doesn't exist'. And where 'entropy' comes into play there will be effects. One of those will be space, another one will be matter, from that you get 'distance' presuming that there is someone 'observing'.

So what would a 'observer' be? Myself I design that as all that can have a relation inside SpaceTime, obeying what we see as its 'laws', including space dust :)

And wherever you find 'matter and space' you will find motion, as that is a relation between just those two, and with that come velocity and speed.

But 'light' then?

Well, light would be what 'shines through' our SpaceTime, but only according to 'rules'. So, do I think that this 'light' is a background for us?

Nope, I think of it as 'emergences'. We're all the same thing, but with 'emergences' we gain new 'properties'. The atom have 'properties' not understandable, like its spin, from classic physics. That we can model them doesn't necessarily say that we 'understand' what they are.

We are very ingenious, and the best 'copy cats' existing. So we are capable of learning new rules, and we also find them deducing. That means that we 'guess' but we guess using what we know and sometimes from what we think we can see as being 'new laws'. That was what all the best did, they connected effects to new ideas and laws, so we are more than just 'copy cats' in that motto.

But to do that you will have to go against the stream at times, creating your own idea. But if you do you need to know your basics, just like Einstein. He gave the basics a long hard stare at the same time as I think he too had some idea of how he 'wanted it to be'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #183 on: 21/12/2010 16:25:06 »
I'm definitely not a Einstein, but there might be some of you getting ideas, and maybe even seeing ways to prove this notion of mine. And that's what cool with the Internet, we all share up here.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #184 on: 21/12/2010 17:41:42 »
So, is a red shift a time-dilation?

Depends on how you see energy I guess, to me it have to be an equivalence to a time dilation, but it express itself different depending on its vectors. Think of two objects each one separating from the other near 'c'. The beam they send between each other will travel at 'c' still, but as a consequence of them separating become very red-shifted. We know that both of those objects have to have a 'slower time', as compared to us being at their origin waiting for them to come back, so they are highly 'energetic' objects and so the red-shift observed is just a consequence of their respective vectors in space and no telltale of their 'inherent' energy.

If they was coming together instead, keeping the same speed? Sending a light-beam to each other that light-beam would be perceived as very compressed and so extremely 'energetic' from both perspectives.

So red or blue-shift is no absolute quality, informing you of the 'state' of the object sending it out. But as I suspect that 'energy' can and will create a 'time dilation' I would say that the later description would create a greater 'time-dilation'.

What one need to remember discussing this is that you can have three ships :) One going away the other two meeting each other. The relations described here will then be simultaneous.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #185 on: 22/12/2010 01:28:53 »
Back to the Lorentz contraction :) Why do I think it's real?

Well, I have no problem with there being no 'forces' in the usual sense, acting on the object. Look above at those three ships and the 'Lorentz contraction', loosely speaking, their beams have.

There is no 'force' involved in this, motion yes, and a 'space' that acts weird from the view of any of the two others watching that, whatever, ship they are watching :)

But stay with your own 'room time geometry' and you will be fine. You can change that two ways as I know, motion or 'proper mass'. If we look on motion it becomes clear that we, even though 'needing' an acceleration as compared to our origin, too be able to perceive it. We still can't state that the room time geometry we were in, being 'at rest' wasn't twisted too. So a uniform motion, or a inertial object have a 'twisted room geometry' too in fact. The only way to prove me wrong is to show me where the objective universal rest-frame exist. The place wherefrom the universe sets its 'speedometer', and no, not relative.

So everything twists, not rocks but twists :)
Well, to me it rocks too :)
===

Maybe I should say three ways?
Energy too I expect to be able to do it.

Like a very hot plasma.
But if you think I'm wrong point it out :)
And give me a good explanation.
« Last Edit: 22/12/2010 01:36:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #186 on: 22/12/2010 01:45:58 »
The interesting thing here becomes how to make sense of that space we perceive?
Why we have so much trouble accepting a twisted space I think comes from the way it looks. You look up on the stars and you see them all, no matter their relative speeds, and Lorentz contraction. space being isotropic, the same to us everywhere. It would have been cool if we had that extra sense that allowed us to see those different room time geometries and how they melted into each other but we can't. And you have to remember that this is also the 'frames of reference' that I never stops wondering about. How and where do one stop and another come into being, and considering that you can have two different 'frames of reference' for one object depending on where you're watching from? Imagine if you could be like those photons we split, getting 'entangled' then imagine that we without 'observing' allow one to meet a really cold gas, so cold that it will slow it down, then imagine that it was us instead, then we would have a chance to see what a 'split' reality might look like.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #187 on: 22/12/2010 01:51:31 »
But we can't, as far as I know? We can still try to make sense of it though. So when that space around me contracts, did I contract too? I think I did actually, that seems the simplest answer. The other simple answer is to trust in my yard-stick and point out that, no, it wasn't me, the real culprit is SpaceTime. "Where were you sir, 08:43 Standard Greenwich Time?" and "Can you prove it" :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #188 on: 22/12/2010 02:01:43 »
So what does this make of a 'position'? If all 'Positions' becomes variables depending on your 'room time geometry' for the moment? Look at Frediks try to explain how he sees it when discussing how the light from watching a loong rocket will reach you differently from the front, as compared to the rear. It's valid for any 'frame', as I think, this explanation.

"Note that a "frame" is another word for "coordinate system" and that a coordinate system is just a function that assigns four numbers (t(p),x(p),y(p),z(p)) to each event p.

A hypersurface of constant t is "space at time t" in a particular coordinate system. The union of all such hypersurfaces defined by a coordinate system is spacetime. So a coordinate system defines a way to "slice" spacetime into 3-dimensional spaces representing space at different times.

But different inertial coordinate systems slice spacetime in different ways to make sure that the speed of light is the same in all of them. If your velocity relative to me is v in the x direction, my "slices" would intersect yours at an angle arctan v.

The motion of a rocket is represented by a set of curves ("world lines") in spacetime (e.g. one for each atom). What represents the rocket "right now" in a particular coordinate system is the set of points where those curves intersect "space at time t".

But my "space at time t" is tilted by an angle arctan v relative to yours. So when we both try to measure the distance "in space" between the world line of the front of the rocket and the world line of the rear of the rocket, we're not measuring the same thing. We're both measuring a distance between the same two world lines, but not between the same two points on those world lines. "
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #189 on: 22/12/2010 02:11:19 »
Gives you a headache does it :)
Well, you're not alone.

Worldlines is one weird subject, involving too much math. But notice "But different inertial coordinate systems slice spacetime in different ways to make sure that the speed of light is the same in all of them."

That's a very clever way of describing it. what he states here, as I see it, is that different 'room time geometries' will see different things. And why they do so is because we have this remarkable 'rule' telling SpaceTime that it always have to adapt to one rule, namely that the speed of light always have to be equivalent to 'c' in whatever medium it passes, be it a vacuum or windowpane, as seen from that 'room time geometry'.

That's a really cool idea.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #190 on: 22/12/2010 02:54:48 »
Can you see how it works?
Like invisible boxes, made of 'light'.
Yep, they are made of 'light', they are all radiation.
You define your room from the radiation perceived, and that goes for matter too.

You never touch anything, when you think you do what gets exchanged is the radiation between 'objects' that your body translates into different sensorial expressions like heat, pressure, etc.

The same goes for what you taste, on a slightly higher 'size' or level, working our way 'up', taste becomes geometrical formations fitting certain receptors in your mouth and tongue. That's why artificial sweeteners can be so strong. On the molecular level they seem to have a better 'fit' than natural sweetener, like sugar, all as I understands it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #191 on: 02/01/2011 04:17:43 »
Thinking about it I would like to thank a lot of guys for helping me see what the he* I thought I though. I always found that young girls answer to my liking, that answered when asked why she spoke so much. "I speak to find out what I'm thinking." That's how it feels for me too. So when we discuss the right way, being cool without trying to come out the 'winner', then I grow and learn. And I think you can learn from it all, both what is wrong and what is right, and a really cool discussion dives headlong into both I think :)

So thnx, JP naturally, it's always a pleasure reading him, and Lightarrow who tried to explain the math behind waves, Soul Surfer, LeeE, Pmb, BoredChemist, MrChem, Rosie, Gezzer, Jartza and yes, also those of you I haven't seen here for a while. I'm sorry that I can't remember all names. I do miss you guys & gals, I learnt a lot reading and talking with you. This place needs us all, so I hope you'll show up again, if you're now reading this. And then there are people outside I learnt a lot from, like Sapo and all the guys & gals on his site, a cool one. GoodElf, always a gentleman, with intriguing ideas about holography, and also those guys that once, so long ago, helped me on that site where I started this physics journey. I think my ideas have grown out of what we've discussed and without that, it would have been a he* lot harder :)

And no, I do not have a theory, it's more a summary of what I think so far, but I'm pleased anyway.
I have views, some set, others flexible, and they may all be wrong.
But maybe?

Anyway
Here goes nothing :)

==
The energy density of a vacuum is, as I understand it, a 'negative' one, also called the cosmological constant as that is what is thought to define this 'negative density', and also called Einsteins biggest blunder. Maybe it isn't though, a blunder I mean. QM 'zero point energies' if added up differs from the measured cosmological observation by a magnitude of one hundred and twenty orders, making the discrepancy very large and unexplainable. It is also thought of as one of the, or the, reason(s) why we see an expansion as it corresponds mathematically to a gravitational repulsion.

But, being 'negative', the reason two plates join I do not see as 'space' having a pressure. Space have a 'zero' pressure. I see the real effect as disallowing certain 'virtual wave lengths' by having the plates extremely close, creating an local 'unbalance' that SpaceTime rectify by forcing the plates together. I see it as a result from our 'arrow of time'. A 'unfettered space' have all those wavelengths outside Plank time as I see it. When we introduce the plates we disallow some of them, creating a effect inside our arrow of time, as SpaceTime equilibrium is disturbed. So yes, to me the Casimir effect has to do with time. And so has Rindler observers and Unruh radiation.

As for the first of my statements you can look at General relativity: an introduction for physicists by Michael Paul Hobson, George Efstathiou, Anthony N. Lasenby.
 

The virtual particles we talk about is 'energy carriers', existing inside us, as well as all around us. Without them we have no idea for how 'energy' gets transformed and distributed. My view isn't that strange I think :) As I think of it 'SpaceTime' exist in a 'size' of its own, defined by its dimensions, and there we have some different 'dimensional topologies' to choose between, times arrow being a really important one. Could we place ourselves outside that arrow I doubt a 'SpaceTime' would be seen. Naively seen my 'SpaceTime' is infused with a lot of other possible 'realities', one that we call 'virtual'. If there are more I don't know, so far we have 'virtual particles' and gluons as the two strong contenders, but I expect both to be under what is 'meaningful' for us, impossible to observe inside our arrow. Density is a concept we use, remember that this is my view now:), inside SpaceTime. Outside an arrow of time it becomes different. That's why Space is nulled, becoming classically 'zero' as I see it.

You can discuss 'negative pressure' as a concept but to me it's more of a 'time reversal' well maybe not reversal, more like opening a 'rift' in SpaceTime. If we look at a Black Hole it seems as SpaceTime have one answer to singularities, close it. So when those plates are brought together, disallowing the wavelengths, we create a disturbance and SpaceTime 'closes it'. Hawing radiation is a 'communicative' process only if seen from the viewpoint of its entanglement as I understands it. You can not speak of it as anything 'moving' from the inside of the EV to the outside. What we see is to me a self regulatory expression of a state of SpaceTimes equilibrium, and if you like 'entropy'. It's like a game, if you stop looking at motion and distance, it has some very peculiar rules that will make things happen inside our arrow, where the idea of entanglements for making a SpaceTime work seems really important to me. And furthermore, if we define Hawking radiation as a 'communicative process' we introduce a communication from a 'singularity' making my idea more plausible as I see SpaceTime as a place where we only can see a part of the 'real thing'. The 'arrow of time' is what creates it for us, making linearity work, without an arrow it would all be chaos. It seems as 'SpaceTime' uses linearity inside non-linearity, inside linearity insi.. ad infinitum, as one of its main 'rules'. But we haven't realized that particular concept until recently. And now we are trying to make sense of it, and it may make sense if linearity is one of the peculiarities you get with an arrow.

You can see a Lorenz contraction two ways as I understand. As a geometrical 'twist' fooling our senses and measurements or as 'real'. If you see it as real, and you really should if you believe in a 'time dilation' then distance is a function of SpaceTime and your 'room time geometry'. I've used 'frames of reference' before, the problem being that it is a very neutral definition, you can talk about your own, then about someone else's in the same breath fooling yourself to see both as being of the same 'value'. They're not, no matter what you do, how fast you travel, if you're at a neutron star, you have the same expiration date. But all other frames you ever will notice, or as I call it 'room time geometries' are relative you open for 'change', and by the same 'experiences' that you will find 'not' changing your duration. If you see how I think.

When I use my description I know where I stand with it, I'm looking at the universe from my 'room time geometry' and mine is unique. If discussing yours then that one also will be unique, solely yours.

There is a subtle difference in it to me :)

Helping me to see what I think is important. People seem to think that this universe is a seamless 'whole', and I agree in one way, but if you look at it as 'room time geometries' they seem to come in all 'sizes' from a pebble on the beach to a electrons 'orbital' to, whatever I can think up i guess :) And they all have to be slightly different I think, presenting a different SpaceTime, but still giving us all this feeling of 'sharing' the exact same universe.

And how they do that is radiation. There are three things SpaceTime is to me.

A topology defined by your 'room time geometry' (gravity/space)

Radiation.

Matter.

For the moment that is, I'm open for change :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #192 on: 02/01/2011 05:11:39 »
And if we accept that 'the arrow of time' just as your 'room' is a function of that 'room time geometry' then what you call 'distance' I prefer to look at as a 'sliding relation, magnifying and contracting' your 'reality'. How that works is hard to see but it have to be a function of our arrow, well maybe we need 'it all' to get to that 'arrow' probably it is so. Speed is a distance measured in time. So speed is relative your 'room time geometry.' With one exception. Light... So what is motion? If it can change with 'potential gravity' or 'stress'. And does light really move? Think of it. I know, it sounds like a rather weird question, doesn't it. I find light easier to understand if I go after its definitions, instead than after what I think I observe 'normally'. Then light will have the same 'speed' in all 'frames of reference', be that your own, or any other 'frame' you measure (like that attacking space fleet coming at Earth, and no, they're not, just an example:)

And light only exist in its interactions.

Weak observations will still build on 'interacting' even if removed from what you observe. To prove that wrong you need to observe without observing at all. (It makes most sense if you remember that I see SpaceTime as a 'game', the rules doesn't necessarily have to make any 'sense' to me if I compare it to mine 'immediate reality' writing here) You can look at space as a 'spring system' where the density will express itself as springs, resting against springs, resting against spr.. Ad infinitum.

Your light will then represent a 'oscillating motion' having a velocity in that mass of springs where the light-corn/wave :) is represented by the oscillation 'propagating' in the medium. The density of the medium it travels through may be thought of as the rigidity of those springs, or their 'inertia'. Or as a single extremely long spring being 'SpaceTime'. And doing so the oscillation/light still can be seen to travel through that spring, but the 'spring' never move. A third possibility is to let those springs 'pop up' from nowhere, making indentions very close to each other creating an illusion of movement for those looking, like a sheet with someone doting it from behind with a marker. Like our 3-D was sheet upon sheet upon sheet, with a he* of a lot of markers everywhere :) Then you also would have our 'arrow'. And, in a strange way, it all becomes a question about what 'times arrow' really is? But if I'm correct in assuming that 'SpaceTime' is related to unique 'room time geometries', and that everything you observe, have it's own. And that light will in and from all those 'room time geometries' only present us with that same one speed?

Why?
And how?

In 'frames of reference' I find a difference between what I see as my 'time' relative all other frames, just as you can do when comparing yours to all others. I don't see how I can do the same with the speed of light? Can you see a way? To me it seems as if this 'light' always is 'the same' no matter how I choose to look at it? And why do we only observe its 'interactions'? And 'virtual light' is real 'light' for a Rindler observer and as Unruh radiation. And, just how did it become 'real' now again? As I see it you do it by 'compressing' your 'room time geometry'. And there are two ways I know of.

Invariant proper mass (restmass)
Motion.

Imagine it as a 'still frame.' Let light exist in 'propagation' Mark out where those light-corns will be on your frame.Now compress the frame speeding away. What happened with your coordinate system? What coordinate system will your neighbor see from home? The question could be stated as which frame is the 'correct' one? And to see its inherent weirdness: Remember that your neighbor never lost touch with you 'speeding away' looking in his telescope. And, what the he* happened with our 'propagating light'? Is it in two places? Eh, its' real, no joke. There are two coordinate systems there, each one having its own 'time dilation' & Lorentz contraction as I see it. You can't just expect one object motion to create it. There is no absolute 'frame of rest' inside SpaceTime. The best we can do is to define them relative each other. And if you succeeded in placing two non uniformly accelerating rockets in absolute sync, we could define those too as being 'at rest' relative each other

Lets back up a little. Entanglements? What about 'ordinary light'. Can that be entangled too? I don't know, do you? If it was, would that make a difference? To me, a entanglement makes a difference, by just existing. We just need to know that the concept exist. And light, how can it 'communicate' in 'no time', over singularities, and as far as I understand, having no limit to their distance as they do so. 'Communicate' here, I see as setting a opposite spin for its other half, by you interacting with one of them. You can widen this idea to entangle more 'photons' too. Those are the things I wonder about. And now you do it too :) Heh. And 'room time Dimensions/topology' includes string and loop quantum theory too. Although I look at dimensions as 'properties', not singular 'thingies', but I might be wrong in it all :) Life huh :)

==
Hi yoron!

Some remarks of mine:

You wrote: "Although I look at dimensions as 'properties', not singular 'thingies', but I might be wrong in it all :)"

That's not as strange as it looks on a first glance; vectors of QM-Hilbert-space can be represented in a multitude of bases, the space-representation just being one possibility amongst others; another one e.g being the spin-up/spin-down basis. Thus the concept of space being a "property" amongst others is quite plausible.

    "As I think of it 'SpaceTime' exist in a 'size' of its own, defined by its dimensions,"

Riemannian Geometry is indeed an *intrinsic* formulation of geometry thus "size" may solemnly depend on the unit of the metric compared to other quantities existing "in" that very spacetime. There is also a very good video lecture on GR including Powerpoint-docs available from Uni Tuebingen:

=== By Solkar

Which made rather pleased, my ego taking off like a hot air balloon ::))
Well, we all have one. don't we?
No, not balloon..

Only me??
Da*n

... Then ..

==
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #193 on: 02/01/2011 05:12:50 »
==
I feel there is always an intrinsic frame of rest which is always the first person, observer's "room". And, I've always had difficulties with time, myself. I tend to think of time as a dimension (not unlike any other) and time dilation is a result of perspective within that dimension, relative to your "room."

Solkar: Here's a copy and paste version of your excellent reference:
General relativity.

=== By ubavontuba.

"I've always had difficulties with time, myself. I tend to think of time as a dimension (not unlike any other) and time dilation is a result of perspective within that dimension, relative to your "room.""

I agree :) it's hard to 'divide' what we call 'SpaceTime' We need to see the rules making it a 'whole' like the Feigenbaum constant and the Bekenstein bound. I'm not saying that they are absolutes, but I think we will find more constants if we just start to look, and we need to too. So maybe this universe of ours is even weirder than we thought huh :)Rereading you ubavontuba. Maybe you meant that there is two 'dimensions'? Namely the 'room 3-D' and 'times arrow'? I think so at times too, it depends on my mood :). It's very hard to ignore the arrow, and I don't agree with placing entropy before the arrow. To me it you can't even discuss 'entropy' and neither 'discrete events' without implicatively assuming a 'arrow' resting behind it. To put it bluntly, there is a need of a 'glue' for your causality chains to exist.

Then, on the other hand, we have the concept of a 'whole' 'SpaceTime'. Looking at it that way your 'arrow' becomes a property of the whole 'shebang' impossible to free from the idea of a 'SpaceTime'. There may be a way to solve this though, at least as I see it, and that is to look at the way our 'universe' changes appearance through what chaos math calls 'emergences'. Water becoming ice, gaining totally new properties (ever tried to skate on water?:) Some look at that as 'hand waving' but I don't. To me this is no stranger argument than when you define what you call your 'system'. The idea of a 'system' is to me a equivalence to 'emergences', meaning that, you or the 'universe', defines an 'importance'. The difference being that the 'universe' was first doing it :) It's either that or walking a lonely path to smaller and smaller 'thingies' and then walking back trying to see how they build this 'SpaceTime' and the 'states' we associate with different 'sizes'. Macroscopically, QM, Plank Size and under. Because we see that the 'universe' behave differently, don't we?

In a really good game you should have several ways to solve your goal. And I think that this is exactly what SpaceTime offers us. There might be a possibility to prof SpaceTime the 'lonely way'? Another might be through 'emergences'? The worst thing we can do is to assume that there exist an 'objective truth' a linear process, simple to see that will define it all. On the other hand I do believe there is one (not necessarily 'linear' in the way we used to think of it though:) But I also expect us to have to redefine a lot of 'self evident' truths and ideas we have first to see it. And that's where my interest lies. To see what is possible to redefine. And now I'm sounding both pompous and self-contradictory. It's not what I set out to do :) But I do think we will find a 'causality chain' making 'sense'. And it seems like a lot of guys, & gals, are doing just what I think is necessary to get there. although the chain will seem to have very little with what we call 'reality' in our daily lives. I don't know if it's true but I've seen some suggest that with new words comes new ways to see. So I'm hoping we will find those words. (Like Emmy Noether did)

==
It looks like we're on the same page. I view time in lots of ways, depending on the application. Like how spatial dimensions hold mass/energy distributions, time holds event distributions. Time is also the river which passses through the spatial dimensions and changes the spatial mass/energy distributions. By doing so, time effectively shatters the Bekenstein bound - by allowing the defined space to hold more things, but over time. So time can be viewed as both a dimension, and an effect. It's also part of the very topology of space. And, "the arrow of time" has many definitions, as seen here: Arrow of time: Arrows.
==By ubavontuba.

Yeah :) but in the definition of 'entropy', we can also find a reversibility as well as 'islands' that stays the same, according to several sources. Entropy is not a desert of sand growing, killing us off. It's more like an ocean in where you can find different salinity and spots that stays the same. So in that motto it does not fit the unique arrow you have, no matter what others might think of your 'age'. Maybe there is some way to adapt 'entropy' to that fact though? The reversibility of entropy comes from biology, but the 'spots that stays the same' is actually an accepted definition amongst those working with 'entropy' since long time past. We only need to accept one of them to see that your unique 'room time geometry' isn't 'entropic'. To be so it should be possible for your arrow to stop in your own 'frame of reference'.

==
Well, entropy is certainly observed. I wouldn't suggest that life is a reversed entropy, as the energy of the entire system which supports life certainly is dissipating. Rather life is the result of the useful energy which remains in the system. It's been suggested there may be a sort of entropic "reset" mechanism, which would be the cyclic universe model, but it seems unlikely. However, these musings boil down to philosophy, as we simply don't know from whence the energy of the universe originates. Perhaps universes spring into being as a regular occurrence. Perhaps there's only the one universe, dying a slow death. Perhaps new energy is being introduced into our universe from sources we simply haven't yet observed. Perhaps... You see? Nothing but speculation and philosophy. So what we know is entropy is real locally, and locally is all we really have. As for staying young, I think that's a matter for the microbiologists and geneticists to sort out.
==By ubavontuba.

Yeah, it's interesting. But what I'm boiling down too is that entropy when defined as I do, in unique 'room time geometries' don't fit in. Not if I assume that those laboring with it are right in that you can have 'isolated islands' where the energy don't transform into 'energy done' at the same rate as seen from a larger perspective. That is if one assume that ones personal arrow constantly tick with the same rate measured inside. And I can't find any way to disprove that notion? And no, to me that one isn't philosophy, rather an unavoidable fact of relativity. Maybe someone already have an answer to that question? Another thing, defining times arrow. If I assume that what 'communicates' is radiation, what does that make 'the arrow of time'? What I notice is that lights speed is a constant. Your time as measured from/in your own 'room time geometry' can also be seen as a 'constant'. That makes them interesting as an equivalence. You could also argue that radiation is the best 'clocks' existing. Getting closer to 'times arrow' than using radiation I don't think is possible? And it works when measuring other 'frames of reference' from your own too. When you do you use the 'arrow of time' you have locally, aka 'room time geometry'. So, maybe it's right? I don't really know, but maybe? To define radiation as our arrow of time? One problem being that, if so, it contradict my earlier question about 'lights motion', doesn't it :) But maybe both ideas works together? It's just us not seeing it? In defense of my notion I will spell out two 'magic words'..

Lorentz contraction
Time dilation.

And one more.
Constants.

I'm going for one more proof why I think light 'doesn't move', risking to bore you to death. To explain how 'photons' can be of different strengths I've seen some suggest that they come in 'higher concentrations' per time unit. That as they are thought of as invariant light-quanta. Not waves now, 'photons'. Think of the sun as a sun-hose streaming out 'photons' at a black hole. Put a solar panel between the black hole and the sun. What do you expect to happen as we move that detector closer to the black holes EV (Event horizon)? Will the photons deliver more energy? Why? If they do, can I assume that to be a consequence of them getting 'compacted' bunched together by 'gravity'? Nope. If we assume gravity to 'accelerate' them they should be spaced out:) Not 'bunched together' as they close in. So that one didn't hold water, did it? Well, they can't 'accelerate' you point out. Instead they 'change' energy. Okay, but then they can't close in on each other either, right? And what do we say they do instead of accelerating? Change energy? By themselves, intrinsically you mean? But they're timeless? And only defined in their 'interactions'? Where do you expect them to do this amazing feat? And if they did? Why isn't that an 'interaction'?
 
It's no different from a 'photon' bouncing near the Event horizon. As it 'climbs up' it will become red shifted relative the 'far observer' and so 'lose energy'. And it's a very good argument of it not existing until in its 'interaction' to me:) As we otherwise would have to find an explanation to why it 'loses energy' when it's expected to be of a defined 'light quanta'. To see what I mean there you have to remember that light is 'time less' intrinsically, and only 'existing' in its interaction. If you want to define it as it changes 'energy' as it climbs you will have defined an 'interaction'. That's not possible, if so, all light would annihilate as soon as it meet another gravitational potential, and it doesn't. That's where its 'timelessness' comes in too as that is what we assume to make it possible to 'propagate' vast 'distances' without losing 'energy', as I understands it. To see it my way you need to see it as a game, nothing more but nothing less either. Another proof is that this photon climbing if measured outside that gravity well will be found to have gotten all its 'strength' back, telling us that it expended no energy climbing, no matter what we would have measured it to be if inside that gravitational potential. So looking at it as a game helps one accepting the rules. Looking at it as we observe it here in our daily life won't.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #194 on: 08/01/2011 21:01:37 »
Energy is limited by one thing it seems to me.
The speed of light (in a vacuum).

Somehow it's related.

You can also see it as an expression of 'objects' interacting.
But regulated by light. And 'motion', as easily can be proved if you let one bystander be 'still' relative an explosion, another going from it, a third going towards it.

All three will give different 'energies'. Then you have to differ between the 'conceptual view' in which we look upon those three relations, analyzing their relation finding a common connection, and the one in where you're 'there' observing a 'single outcome'.
==

But 'motion' falls under lights speed in a vacuum, so in the end we come back to one constant, I think?
It all depends on how you look at SpaceTime, as a God, or as a observer.
==

To me the observer is the important thing, if we would see a different 'energy' but it being an 'illusion' created by our 'moving observers' then it wouldn't matter and the view point of 'God' would be appropriate. But if we find the 'energy'  to differ, then the three 'observers' all are right, and 'God's' point of view becomes slightly skewed.

To see it better you can imagine the two 'moving observers' as having a uniform motion, inseparable from being 'at rest'. It is a fact that we have no 'rest-frame' in the universe, and so all uniformly moving objects are contenders for that universal 'frame of rest' if you like. If you find a way to put this notion into doubt we will have a different universe. That also mean that when I define two observers as 'moving', then that is only a 'relative truth' relative the third, that I then arbitrarily decided to define as 'being still'. Although he is being still relative the origin of the explosion there is nothing guaranteeing that this is the ultimate place of 'rest' in our universe. In 'reality' there are no such thing, or all uniformly moving 'objects' will be 'still', no matter what velocity you define to them.

Read it closely, one more time, and then try to see the universe, and the explosion from the viewpoint of expending energy. Any time you make a change in the universe you will have to 'expend energy' according to my view. Not expending 'energy' is, making no change. So do the uniformly moving observers spend any energy?, do the one at rest? But, if I am right we still have three 'types' of energy, real energy bursts happening? As far as I can see the only thing expending energy here is the explosion.

If so a gravitational acceleration, according to how I see it :) should be no 'acceleration'. Why, well nothing expends anything there, do they? accelerations is all about 'change' and 'change' is about expending energy locally, changing your 'SpaceTime'. To me that is, and now :) I need to think this over again I guess, but for now I'll go with it.
 

What is 'energy'?

If you accept that the energy is real for all three then you've killed the idea of 'objectivity', or that 'God like' point of view. That you can find a common relation and three energies guarantee only that there seems to be a 'sliding relation' between different observers, joining their observations. But, and that's the important thing, those energies was all real, by themselves. And as a 'system' you might want to define it to have a uniform motion, well, you're God after all :) making those energies tell you yet another thing about their 'strength' relative the 'universe'. The 'sliding relation' you see is meditated by radiation. And that's governed by lights invariant speed in and from all frames of reference, namely the speed of light in a vacuum.

So there is no way to define a universal measure of 'energy', but they will still, all three, do different amounts of 'work'. Then 'energy' also is a very 'local definition' and no truth you can use to describe a common SpaceTime. Remember that all uniformly moving frames, according to me, can be seen as equivalent, no matter what velocity you measure from your 'position'.

You can't have one  'common SpaceTime' where three observers, all being 'still', will measure three different readings for the same explosion, can you? If you can I'm quite interested in how it's possible?" And they are, being still, if I define them to be. It's two views you can use here, one looked at as a 'system'. There you can define who's moving against whom. But you can also choose to define it from all three points of view, one at a time.

I'm free to define each one of them as unmoving if seen from inside that black box. Just exchange the explosion for a siren, (equivalent to a light beam) keep our three observers but put them all into black boxes. Let two move uniformly, making it impossible to separate it from being at rest. Then listen to the Siren as one approach it, one are beside it, and one leaves it. The sound perceived inside that black box will be equivalent to the different 'energies' I'm discussing.

And all three will define it differently.
And all three will, according to the best of their definitions, see them self as being 'at rest'.

This one I expect to hold true in a constant uniform acceleration too, but not with a non-constant, non-uniform one, at least not having the exact equivalence as the uniform, and uniformly accelerating, motion seem to have? It's a difference there, even though all three still should refer to measuring a different energy? As for if I can define the constant uniformly accelerating observers as being at rest? Well, assuming one gravity it becomes a direct equivalence to Earth, doesn't it? Although, without any Coriolis force involved? So would I be able to?:)
==

Accepting my definition about there being three real and different 'energies' I hope you will find my definition of different 'room time geometries' making more sense. In your unique 'room time geometry' 'times arrow' give you the same expiration date no matter where you are, always 'ticking' with the same duration. The only 'time dilation' you will see will be the one defined by SpaceTime accelerating in 'time' as you 'move' near light speed. The Lorentz contraction can also be seen the same way, if you like, as an expression of 'SpaceTime' as your yardstick will give you the same measurements as before, measuring.

But, does that makes sense? I like it better if I define it as it all being one whole 'expression' where we use 'energy' to change it. And that's why I like 'energy expended'. Your 'room time geometry' will then be the whole of 'SpaceTime', and all yours. My 'room time geometry' will be another, having a different 'SpaceTime'. Then there is the question why they 'join' into one 'big SpaceTime'? I think it's by the same 'sliding relations' I mentioned before, radiation. And that's also why we have so many 'points of view', all depending on where we imagine us standing, observing. But my 'room time geometries' are defined from each 'object' existing, as they all should describe something unique.

Don't know how much sense it make seen 'globally', but 'locally' I'm quite happy with it :)
« Last Edit: 09/01/2011 04:29:46 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #195 on: 10/01/2011 04:58:22 »
So does the idea looking at light as not 'propagating' change anything?
Well it changes a lot, first of all we can stop discussing 'photons' and 'wavepackets'. We can also forget about 'waves'.
Combine it with my notion of distances being a variable and what do you get?

We get interactions creating a SpaceTime.

What would then define those interactions in a 'meaningful way'?
Well 'meaningful' just states that we exist, and we are self aware, therefore we are 'meaningful'. so it's a relative expression really, relative what we find to be 'meaningful'

Constants.
==

Why do I put such an importance to Constants? That's quite easy to answer, no matter what we have, propagating or not, we have rules defining it. Some of those rules are weirder than most, and those are the constants. They are weird in that we do not know where they come from, the other rules binds into each other as I see it but a constant is like a border. A barrier separating 'reality' from what 'might be'.

The more 'constants' we can find, the better we will see the game. They are the ultimate rules of SpaceTime, and from them I believe all other rules to come, when looked upon as a hierarchy. I might be wrong in that as I when doing so assume a causality chain ordering itself according to some principle, but inside SpaceTime I expect them to do just that.
==

Assuming that light doesn't propagate breaks down all notions we have about an 'arrow of time', but will it break down the idea of 'entropy'?. After all, they are not the same as I see it. Your arrow always ticks the same, but entropy?
==

And what exactly should we then call this light? I like photons, because that narrows them down, making it easier to consider them 'point like particles'. You can if considering it a wave also consider that same wave to 'propagate' in such a manner that it from its own frame have no 'distance' to speak about. None outside it, and none inside it.

So what does that make them. Heh, they are the holes in our 'reality' :)
They exist in their interaction. Depending on what rules that create that interaction they ..will.. express themselves differently. In a way they really are 'holes'. It will be the 'relations' that demands them that also create what we measure.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2011 05:50:17 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #196 on: 10/01/2011 06:07:03 »
So can we construct a experiment proving that concept? I don't know, I don't think so, as for now that is. That as all 'photons' have to be a result of the surroundings demanding them to 'become'? On the other hand we seem to walk further and further from the path where our experiments make any 'common sense' if looked at from a quantum mechanical perspective. So from the viewpoint of 'delayed choice' I expect you to feel a certain sympathy for my way of looking at it :)

But if we really follow my logic we will meet some 'constant' and causality chain explaining those too. But one of them will be the one I present here. It all depends on how you want to look at the universe. Put your thoughts into perspective and consider how you would have thought when Newton was alive and well. I guess we all would have been quite happy with his universe, even though we would have tried to move its 'borders' then too.

Now we have a universe in where 'distance' and Newtons 'unchanging time' both are variables. Where light, although it interacts with us at all time, does not take any place inside SpaceTime, does not have any mass, is intrinsically timeless, and so able to collect all light there is in a possibly 'one or none-dimensional' spot. Not existing.

Try that for a nobrainer.

So, how do my ideas see that last example?
All photons 'compressed' into one dimensionless spot?

NP. They are after all what I call 'holes' in our 'reality', only there because of what defines them. so sure, compress and be done with it. All you get is a new 'hole', no different from the 'holes' you started with. But won't it be extremely 'energetic'. Maybe? It will be the surroundings and relations that define that 'hole', nothing else, so it might be possible to arrange some sort of experiment testing that, collecting light but differing the surrounding defining it, and see if it change :) But that's what we already are doing after all, and also getting different answers for the 'same' light.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2011 06:11:36 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #197 on: 10/01/2011 07:01:31 »
So what is a 'photons' groundstate?
Does there exist one, and how do we define it?

Let's first check what a 'ground state' is thought to be. Normally you would assume it to be what a particle has when being 'at rest', don't you agree? So is a photon ever at rest? Nope, it can't be at rest, there is no way to define it as being 'at rest'. But we can 'slow it down' can't we?

Yes, we can. But to see the difference between that and a photon not ever being able to 'rest', we better take a look at what defines a photon again :)

"Anything with zero mass always travels at the speed of light.  But since the speed-of-light is always the speed-of-light... to everyone... thereís no way for these objects to ever be stationary (unlike massive stuff).  Vive la diffťrence des lois!  Itís not important here, but things (like light) that travel at the speed of light never experience the passage of time."

But that photon when slowed down doesn't move at the speed of light, does it? Well, what is it we do when we slow one down? We send a laserbeam into a condensed gas, held by a magnetic field, and chilled to a temperature that makes all 'motion' and 'jiggling' stop. A photon, although of no mass still have a 'momentum', the thing that makes it able to 'push' at other things. So we also use other photons to 'bounce' it against to take out its 'momentum'.

Which is embarrassingly wrong, you can't use the momentum that way, hate it when I do that, trust my memory that is :) The thing I remembered was how they used lasers to shoot photons on the particles making up for the gas slowing/cooling them down. So writing ". All as I understands it. I should really check this up huh." was sadly all to right. Anyway, but at least I re-remebered it right this time, I hope? I thought it was kind of questionable as i wrote it, but, ah well, sh* happens, and in the best of families too.. But I at last have corrected it. and why it can't work on itself, so to speak, is because the force of its momentum is electromagnetic according to QM and relativity both. And as a photon acts as if it was neutral they cant influence each other electromagnetically. I hate being wrong, even when I know I am :) If that makes any sense..

No more than usual huh :) Anyway, this one might help. Not trusting my memory I've double checked about what a photons momentum is defined as.

"For most average objects, momentum is truly mass x velocity.  When motion
gets close to the speed of light, we find that the momentum relation p=mv is
only an approximation.  It is only correct when speed (v) is much smaller
than the speed of light (c).  The relation that works for all speeds is E^2
= p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.  It is much less convenient to use, and doesn't help
figure anything out until you reach speeds of perhaps thirty million meters
per second.  For a particle with no mass, the relation reduces to E=pc.
This works for a photon.  For very small speeds, the system reduces to
E=mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2, and p=mv.  This leads to relations with kinetic energy
and momentum:  much more convenient to work with and just as accurate until
you reach speeds close to the speed of light."

I let this one follow with it, not that it have to do with photons directly but?
It's good :)

"As for magnetic field, there is no reason why it should behave like gravity.
For one thing, the strength of magnetic FORCE depends on the speed of the
particle being pushed or pulled by the field.  Also, unlike gravity,
magnetic force pushes sideways, perpendicular to the field direction.
Gravitational force is just gravitational field multiplied by the mass being
pushed or pulled.  Electric force is just electric field multiplied by the
charge being pushed or pulled.  Magnetic force depends on the charge, speed,
AND direction of the charge being pushed or pulled, as well as the strength
of the field.  It is a very different kind of force.

As for "carrying" the field, it is known that photons of light transmit both
electric and magnetic force.  In fact, light is waves made of oscillating
electric and magnetic fields."


But what we are left with in that condense is no longer any 'photon'. It's a 'imprint' of the photon, like something remembering what a photon should be 'normally', and then as soon as the gas is getting 'warm' starting to 'jiggle' releases our 'photon', 'resurrected'.

So yes, I think I'm pretty right in saying that a 'photon' has no 'rest-frame' and also in my idea of it not 'propagating' other than as something created out of its 'relations' to what demands it.

But relative something else then? Isn't that what the notion being 'at rest' imply after all?
That you only need to find the relation that you can use for defining it to be 'at rest' relative?
Maybe, but what are you going to find that you can define it being 'at rest' against?
Another photon?

"A bound system (such as an electron in an atom, or a simple harmonic oscillator) has a ground state. An unbound system (such as a free particle) does not. So it makes no sense to talk about the ground state energy of a free particle." Would you call a photon a 'free particle'? As it's not even there :) How much freer can anything become?

But isn't there a definition for that photons energy.

==Quote

In 1905 Einstein managed to write a law that works whenever: E^2=P^2c^2+m^2c^4.  The same year (the same freaking  year) he figured out that light is both a particle and a wave and that the energy of a photon isnít governed by itís mass or itís velocity (like matter), but instead is governed entirely by f, itís frequency: E=hf, where h is Planckís constant.

For light m=0, so E=Pc (energy and momentum are proportional).  Notice that you can never have zero momentum, since something with zero mass and zero energy isnít something, itís nothing.  This is just another way of saying that light can never be stationary.

Also!  Say you have an object with mass m, that isnít moving (P=0).  Then you get: E=mc2 (awesome)!

====End of quote

I agree, it's awesome :)

But does a photon have a frequency?
Light as a wave sure has one, but a photon?
Also if a photon had a 'rest mass' shouldn't that raise into infinity as a photon 'propagates' at light. This one is not mine, but Daniels, but I wish :)
« Last Edit: 10/01/2011 23:01:55 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #198 on: 10/01/2011 10:06:13 »
Jastra and I was discussing motion and blue/red shifts, thinking of how a blue shift can import mass when its ray 'hits' you. And there we came to 'uniform motion' contra other types of motion. He's very good at making me see where I miss defining :) anyway, this is how I think about 'gravitational acceleration'. It's trickier than what one might expect, but I still consider it a sensible approach :)

"Look, the friendly men in white coats are waving at me again, wonder what they want?"

Ahem, sort of :)
==

Well, heads that think that light sources are moving, tend to think that the motion of the light sources causes blue and red shifts.

Those heads that think that they are moving, tend to think that they are butting their eye into light, when they are facing the forwards direction,
 
== Jartza


You're right :)

If we assume a uniform motion to the rocket we can exchange the motion of the rocket for one of the box instead. But either way I will in 'reality' only be able to notice a blue shift as I (or the box) approach, and then a subsequent redshift as I (or it) leave. I can see how you think but the light inside that box doesn't exist for you. The only light that exist is the light reaching your detector/eye. And as we assume a uniform motion here then the light inside the box, for someone being in it, will be 'normal as long as he is 'at rest' versus it, not rushing at light speed towards one of the mirrors.

And as it was you Jaztra :) that suggested a uniform motion here and arbitrarily changed your 'point of view' when it came to who it was moving relative whom, you will have to agree I think?

The only way you can change viewpoint like we did here is when we talk about 'uniform motion'. As soon as you decide to put in an acceleration you will know who is moving. Those two frames of reference, the head versus the box won't be equivalent anymore as one will feel a 'force/acceleration'.

But I see what you mean, and as I said before. As soon as we're talking accelerated frames your mass/energy situation comes into play, as far as I can see :)

==

One thing though. 'Accelerated frames', as I define it, will have to expend energy to be 'accelerated'.

Gravity does not create a 'accelerated frame' for our photon, even though it will from the solar panel at rest with the black hole do so. To see my thinking you can ask yourself what the ultimate 'velocity' would be for a piece of matter falling into a black holes infinite gravitation, ignoring tidal forces. Would it be light, or at least as close to light speed as matter can reach?

And when you done that you might ask yourself what gravity is?

If it is a geodesic and no force then that 'speed' we wondered about is no 'force' either but the ultimate 'being at rest' matter can achieve relative gravity. Remember now that if we exchange the matter for a photon the equivalence to the speed is its blueshift, and we know, as it is of a defined energy quanta, that if going up from a EV the photon to the far observer will be red shifted but to its partner coasting beside it be 'as always', at all times. And so, if we assume it 'propagating' it will, when coming out of the gravity-well, have expended no energy.

If we don't assume it 'propagating' the only thing that will decide its energy is the interaction and where it takes place. Then what you see is 'the reality'. if it is red shifted then that is real, and it will be of a weaker energy. If you would meet it outside the gravity well then you would measure another energy etc. The 'where' we talk about here is your coordinate system relative the objects surrounding you, defining your possible gravity/speed.

To me there is a big difference between you forcing a 'change' in your coordinate system locally and when just following a geodesic, expending no energy. And all change that expends energy, whether by you or on you are the same, but not gravitational potentials, aka the 'weird metric.'
« Last Edit: 10/01/2011 10:21:46 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12000
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #199 on: 10/01/2011 11:20:13 »
Those of you that think that the arrow of time is an 'illusion' should be rather pleased with my definitions :) That as what I'm doing is discussing 'moments in time' like if our universe in reality was 'frozen' and in a way unchanging. We know that it change, it's so easy to notice, but from my viewpoint the change is a conceptual thing, we create it in our living. The remarkable thing is that we all agree on its durations :) And that is what I call the arrow of time, always of the same duration for you, no matter where you are.

Entropy on the other hand? I need to know more about that before daring to have a decided opinion. It discusses how systems develop a complexity, growing from order, like your mum laying out your socks, to disorder, like the next morning when you realize that you don't remember where those da*ned sock are anymore. The disorder I speak of is also a greater complexity, after all, those socks could be anywhere, right? But, and that is a big but, it is not the same as when we speak of for example intelligence, and how a nut becomes a tree.

Take a look here at Entropy.
 
I wrote "grow from order" there. It's a rather strange statement isn't it? Why should things grow from an order to an disorder. Well, there are only so many ways to arrange something to order but there's a he* of a lot more way to to leave it into 'disorder'. In a way it's a good proof of the idea of 'emergences' from chaos math. The concept there is how things organize themselves from the 'simple' to the 'complex' creating 'a complex order' not a 'complex disorder' as entropy is expected to do. Think about it :)

Okay, rereading myself. I should stop talk about Entropy as a 'disorder'. It is not a disorder, but neither is it what intelligence seems to be. Entropy is spilling milk in your coffee. You see it mix becoming a fluid , slightly colder and evenly spread in your cup, making the world look so much brighter too :)

That's entropy.

Chaos theory is an attempt to find the principles hiding behind why something very small and insignificant, like a spermatozoa meeting a egg can develop into a human being, filled with purpose and intelligence, sometimes :) So pouring your milk into that coffeecup won't produce a intelligent coffeecup. At least I don't think so myself.

That kind of complexity is something totally different, not covered by entropy, as I see it? To find an explanation for that kind of behavior we have to look to chaos theory, and the math describing it. Entropy can also be seen as the total mix of states into a uniform mixture, where there is no imbalance left between 'work' and 'work done'. Sorry, realized that this one came out ambiguous, what I meant there is that the idea is that we have two states when it comes to 'energy'. It either is 'on' meaning that we can transform it into 'work', or it is 'of' meaning that this 'energy' whatever is on strike, refusing to do any more work, ever.. Yep, hard line strikers those, don't you agree :).

The weird thing is that we expect there to be some 'soup' left in the universe, but unable to transform. And that is weird too if you think of it, on the other hand, if it would be under what we call Plank size it shouldn't be there at all, and then there will be no soup, and no universe either as I see it. But Black Holes are expected to survive long after, so it may be that they then will 'coagulate' into each other, as Space should contract if there only are those and a 'gluon soup' as some suggest. That as I expect space to be a construct needing matter to exist.

The problem is that we at least then have three different descriptions of what's happening inside SpaceTime. The wristwatch description, Entropy's description, Chaos theory's description.

Maybe there are more ways to look at it.
« Last Edit: 13/01/2011 01:59:58 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #199 on: 10/01/2011 11:20:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums